Partial Insurance and Consumption Inequality

部分保险与消费不平等

• 批准号: 0214491
• 负责人: Luigi Pistaferri
• 金额: $ 12.13万
• 依托单位: Stanford University
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Continuing Grant
• 财政年份: 2002
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2002-08-01 至 2004-10-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0214491&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Partial; Insurance; Consumption; Inequality

The main objective of this research proposal is to study the changes in the distribution of household consumption in the US over the 1980-1995 period. This is an interesting period to study due to the dramatic increase in income inequality widely analyzed in the labor economics literature. There is an open debate on the welfare implications of increasing income inequality. One view is that the increase in income inequality is worrying because it implies declining living standards. Another view is that one should rather focus on consumption inequality because consumption is a better measure of welfare than income. The theory suggests that household consumption depends on permanent, not current income, which differs from the former due to temporary fluctuations. The theory's main insight is that absent formal markets for insuring against income losses, individuals use personal savings to "self-insure" against temporary shocks. Thus, if the increase in income inequality is mostly due to temporary factors, the welfare effects of increasing income inequality are less serious than originally thought. The extensive research on the evolution of income inequality in recent years has not been paralleled by comparable research on consumption inequality. The existing research has reached contrasting conclusions (some papers find an increase in consumption inequality, while others find little or no change), or made little attempt to interpret the empirical findings using theory. The project consists of three parts. First, it uses a variety of microeconomic data sets to analyze trends in consumption inequality and contrast them with trends in income inequality in order to explain why different papers reach different conclusions about the main facts of the consumption distribution, focusing on definitional issues and sample selection. Second, it provides evidence (already available in preliminary work) that consumption inequality increases at a slower pace than income inequality over the period of study. One possible interpretation is that most of the increase in income inequality is indeed of temporary nature (income instability). However, labor economics studies have reached the conclusion that income instability and permanent income inequality have increased at similar rates over the period of interest. If anything, permanent inequality outpaces transitory uncertainty. Third, it investigates the empirical validity of an alternative interpretation, that the increase in income inequality is (at least partly) due to permanent factors but there exists "partial insurance" against income shocks over and above personal savings. This form of insurance is provided informally through a variety of channels: social and financial institutions, family network, and rational use of other family choice variables. The investigator provides estimates of the extent of partial insurance against income shocks and assesses how the availability of insurance opportunities changes over time and across skill groups. The empirical analysis will be conducted on two data sets, the Consumer Expenditure Survey and the Panel Study of Income Dynamics.

这项研究建议的主要目的是研究1980-1995年间美国家庭消费分布的变化。这是一个值得研究的有趣时期，因为在劳动经济学文献中广泛分析了收入不平等的急剧增加。关于日益扩大的收入不平等对福利的影响，有一场公开辩论。一种观点认为，收入不平等加剧令人担忧，因为这意味着生活水平在下降。另一种观点认为，人们更应该关注消费不平等，因为消费比收入更能衡量福利。该理论表明，家庭消费依赖于永久性收入，而不是当期收入，由于暂时的波动，这一点与前者不同。该理论的主要观点是，在没有针对收入损失提供保险的正式市场的情况下，个人利用个人储蓄来“自我保险”，以抵御暂时的冲击。因此，如果收入不平等的加剧主要是由于暂时性因素，那么收入不平等加剧的福利效应没有最初想象的那么严重。近年来对收入不平等演变的广泛研究无法与消费不平等的同类研究相提并论。现有的研究得出了截然不同的结论(一些论文发现消费不平等加剧，而另一些论文发现变化很小或没有变化)，或者很少尝试用理论来解释实证结果。该项目由三个部分组成。首先，它使用各种微观经济数据集来分析消费不平等的趋势，并将其与收入不平等的趋势进行对比，以解释为什么不同的论文对消费分配的主要事实得出了不同的结论，重点关注定义问题和样本选择。其次，它提供了证据(已在初步工作中获得)，表明在研究期间，消费不平等的增长速度慢于收入不平等的增长速度。一种可能的解释是，收入不平等加剧的大部分确实是暂时性的(收入不稳定)。然而，劳动经济学研究得出的结论是，在利息期间，收入不稳定和永久性收入不平等以类似的速度增加。如果说有什么不同的话，那就是永久性的不平等超过了暂时的不确定性。第三，它调查了另一种解释的经验有效性，即收入不平等的加剧(至少部分原因)是永久性因素，但存在针对个人储蓄以外的收入冲击的“部分保险”。这种形式的保险是通过各种渠道非正式地提供的：社会和金融机构、家庭网络以及合理使用其他家庭选择变量。调查员提供了针对收入冲击的部分保险范围的估计，并评估了保险机会的可获得性如何随时间和技能类别的变化而变化。实证分析将基于两个数据集，即消费者支出调查和收入动态小组研究。